The Kerala Model: Good to Read About!

Kerala, India is a favorite case study of left-leaning Western development experts. Bill McKibben wrote a book about it; in the Utne Reader, he claims that Kerala proves "sharing works." The New York Times describes Kerala as a place "famously good to be poor" with good reason: Kerala is a communitarian success story. High taxes and heavy redistribution seem to have yielded good schools, relatively high life expectancy, and low infant mortality. Though poor even by India's standards, Kerala is pitched as a "humane alternative to market-driven development." It's a beautiful dream. And according today's New York Times, it's a dream largely sustained by…global capitalism.

"Remittances from global capitalism are carrying the whole Kerala economy," said S. Irudaya Rajan, a demographer at the Center for Development Studies, a local research group. "There would have been starvation deaths in Kerala if there had been no migration. The Kerala model is good to read about but not practically applicable to any part of the world, including Kerala."

…Even as Kerala gained fame, large numbers of its workers were leaving. The Persian Gulf needed labor, and Keralites were used to traveling for jobs. The number of overseas workers doubled in the 1980s, and then tripled in the 1990s. In a state of 32 million where unemployment approaches 20 percent, one Keralite worker in six now works overseas. The largest number work at taxing construction jobs, outdoors in the Arabian sun, though high literacy allows some Keralites to land office work.

It would be easy to overstate the point here. Kerala seems to have done well with limited resources, and absent better opportunities abroad, perhaps it was ideal. The high quality of the schools seems to be part of what's driving the exodus, since educated migrants can land better jobs. But the paradise-amid-poverty status conferred on Kerala by Mckibben and other Westerners is questionable, given that many of its residents choose to drive trucks in Saudi Arabia rather than remain home. Keralans don't seem to want to be poor, even in a place where it's famously good to be.

Comments

[Brandybuck]

Though poor even by India's standards...

Only a true-beleiver leftist would consider being below standard to be famously successful.

[Aresen]

Brandybuck

Keep watchin' the thread. 6 to 1 odds someone turns up to defend Kerala. (Dan T doesn't count.)

[Pinette]

It's a success because almost everybody is equally poor but nobody is starving to death. I think it's the contrast between rich and poor that bothers a leftist, because that's just not FAIR.

[stoneymonster]

My childhood was typical, summers in Kerala, luge lessons. In the spring we'd make meat helmets. When I was insolent I was placed in a burlap bag and beaten with reeds, pretty standard really...

[tarran]

I'm always amazed that people don't point to the Hutterites in the U.S. and Canadian great plains. They have had a succesful communist society going for centuries. In fact, they wer so succesful that they faced official discrimination. Until the 1970's (I think) they couldn't legally buy land in Canada.

Of course are pretty hard-core imitate-the-1st-century Christians, so I don't think most modern leftists would approve of them. However, they are a great example of the success of voluntary communism.

[joe]

Bandybuck,

It's a success story for how poor communities can get by.

Pinette,

Can you think of another reason, besides fairness, why leftists might consider "no one starving" to be a good thing?

[joe]

My take: a capitalist system to produce wealth, a strong welfare state to redistribute it. Sounds like a plan.

[Pinette]

I didn't rtfa, is kerala's communism voluntary? If it was i'd be all for it. I think only good can come from a group of people living together and pooling their money at their own discretion. I am, however, vehemently against forced redistribution of wealth by the state

[Lava]

West Bengal is other state in India also controlled by communists that has poor economic growth. These two states send a significant number of MPs (Member of Parliament) of the communist party to the central parliament. Similarly other parties of have regions where they are stronger. This produces a parliament where no party gets majority. Most parties have no set ideologies but lean center left .The communists are supporting the current government but they are not part of it. This gives them certain power to prevent any sort of reforms at the federal level as well.

[Pinette]

Joe,
of course nobody starving is a good thing. Is it better than 1 person in a hundred starving because he refuses to help himself, and the other 99 that are willing to work for their food doing a lot better than just not starving and actually being very comfortable?

[Aresen]

tarran

The Hutterite model is extremely patriarchal and allows virtually no freedom to its members. It is intensively religious. The Colonies are successful as agrarian communist colonies, but are highly dependent on the outer society for their technology. Unlike [what I understand of] the Amish, they will use trucks, tractors and every modern farming advance.*

The Hutterite model could not work without the outside society for it to sell to or the modern technology that supports it.

*If I'm wrong about the Amish, please correct me.

[tarran]

Aresen,

Oh, I agree about the patriarchical nature of the thing, and wouldn't want to live in one. However, they do permit their members to leave - in fact they are suffering a population crash that started a decade ago or so with young people starting to leave.

With that being said, while they take advantage of trading with outsiders, it is important to note that they've been around since before the industrial revolution. Thus, if trade with the outside were to dry up, I think they would keep motoring on.

[mitch]

Joe: My take: a capitalist system to produce wealth, a strong welfare state to redistribute it. Sounds like a plan.

Unlike a Bolshevik or a Maoist, Joe is a smart enough leftist to know that a successful parasite does not kill the host.

[Malto Dextrin]

My take: a capitalist system to produce wealth, a strong welfare state to redistribute it. Sounds like a plan.

Let's get going with that plan, joe! Hand over your wealth; I'll 'redistribute' it. Trust me.

[Aresen]

tarran

The Hutterite movement got started just on the cusp of the industrial revolution, which I think is why it succeeded when other agrarian communes have failed. The access to external markets and scientific farming methods has been critical. (I've bought bread, poultry and produce from Hutterites, myself. It's very good quality.)

The population crisis you allude to actually began in the 1960s, when the first few tried to leave. Many could not cope with the outside and were allowed to return, after appropriate penance. The few who did make it later formed support groups, which has made the transition easier (and more likely to succeed) than for those who left previously.

There is also the obvious fact that it has become harder to avoid contact with the outside world. This has been made worse by the government's insistence that all children must now attend school until grade 10 or 12 (depending on the state or province.)

[potatohead]

check out this thread at sepia mutiny for a taste of what life is like for the south asians working in the gulf states.

"local Arabs hate immigrants ... and especially desis (as is the trend even in places like Singapore)... for reasons ranging from 'they steal our jobs' to 'they speak weird languages' to 'dark skinned' ... and so on. As for the Hate, I can give you only ones associated with my childhood ... I've no idea what my parents went through. Arab kids in my building used to actually try to *spit* on us ... even on my parents at times. And as all immigrants in Saudi who 'don't want any trouble', we'd just try to ignore them. Even though our interaction with the locals was kept to a minimum (we went to an Indian school), the few interactions we did have were often racist, spiteful or condescending."

"i lived my entire childhood till my late teens in Qatar. I've seen first hand the arabs spite for Desis. And I have thousands of stories about abuses suffered by South asian maids and laborers in these lands. The problem is really bad in the Persian Gulf countries which does not speak for the entire Arab nation. The backbone of this country are South Asians. From India its mainly the Southern states (read: Kerala) that produces the highest number for the workforce. 18 years in the country and i did not have one arab kid of my age who i could call friend. These places still have a colonial mentality as far as preference for white skinned individuals go. I still call the place 'home' but its now just a word."

[Cesar]

for reasons ranging from 'they steal our jobs' to 'they speak weird languages' to 'dark skinned'

Hmm, sounds familiar.

[joe]

Pinette,

I can think up far-fetched scenarios, too. They're usually not very helpful. See "ticking bomb scenario."

IF the only reason people in India were starving was because they were lazy...well, this would be a very different world.

[joe]

Malto,

Who elected you to anything? Back to fifth grade with you! "...deriving its just power from the consent of the governed..."

[Malto Dextrin]

Me and my cronies - there's more of us than you undeserving rich folks. Now, hand over your loot, or into the box you go!

It's all in the name of social justice.

[x,y]

Dear joe:

Please show me where I consented.

Sincerely,

x,y

[joe]

OK. I actually do pay taxes, you know. As I should, being somewhat above median in income.

I just don't whine like an old fanbelt because of it.

[joe]

x,y,

Shall I start by showing you where you consented to allowing the police to enforce trespass against you?

[kohlrabi]

"Shall I start by showing you where you consented to allowing the police to enforce trespass against you?"

Yeah, that's totally the same.

[joe]

No, of course it's different.

You like the government to do one thing, so the entirety of the public has consented to it, but not the other.

[kohlrabi]

Joe,

That's not true. The people who want to redistribute their wealth are more than welcome to do it. They don't have to consent to my beliefs.

My preference makes the allowance for theirs. You cannot say the inverse.

[Cesar]

I wonder if theres a Saudi or Dubain Lone Whacko writing about the SouthAsianThreat?

[joe]

kohlrabi,

The trespassers who wish to remove themselves from my property are welcome to do it, too.

Not really the point, is it?

[prolefeed]

My take: a capitalist system to produce wealth, a strong welfare state to redistribute it slowly strangle the capitalism and drag everyone into poverty. Sounds like a bad plan.

Preview is your friend, joe. Oh, wait, you actually believe that horseshite.

[kohlrabi]

Joe,

Still a poor analogy.

In your scenario:

The trespassers may leave, however, if they want to stay they can only do so by occupying my property, that is, some concession is required of me against my consent.

If people would like to arrange for their property to be open for trespassing, they may do so, it doesn't require my consent.

So, to answer your question. It very much is the point.

[prolefeed]

The Hutterite model could not work without the outside society for it to sell to or the modern technology that supports it.

Aresen, the Hutterite model can and did work prior to the latest technology. You don't need modern technology or outside markets to have a society based on the philosophy "concentrate on breeding as many babies as possible, with religious fanaticism and no luxuries or hedonism, in an agricultural society." Not as quick a growth rate without the technologies, but that model is self-sufficient (and in fact based on) 19th century farming communities.

[kohlrabi]

Joe,

In other words, the redistribution system requires me to participate, to abandon my preference for being left alone.

The non-redistribution system, however, does not require one to be left alone. Others may interact at will- with willing participants.

[prolefeed]

IF the only reason people in India were starving was because they were lazy...well, this would be a very different world.

joe, the poverty and starvation in India is largely due to the leftist redistribution and command and control politics adopted after independence. Parts of India are booming because a more capitalist system was allowed -- those parts of India have less poverty and starvation. The parts with suffering are generally under the bootheels of "compassionate" leftists like you who are preventing the economy from taking off.

It's counterintuitive and hard to grasp -- if you want to truly help people in the long run, you ditch the short-run social programs and give prople the freedom to lift themselves out of poverty. Government is the problem.

But hey, keep on feeling good about all the good you think your leftism will do.

[Ashish George]

My family is from Kerala, and I don't really have any problem with Kerry's original point, especially since I guess my family would be an illustration of it.

But I don't think it really reflects well on libertarians (or anyone else) when a faraway place's development comes up and someone says something like, "Keep watchin' the thread. 6 to 1 odds someone turns up to defend Place X" (as Brandybuck did). If you want to tout something as evidence of the correctness of your political beliefs, fine. But don't make it a matter of "defending" or "attacking" a place.

[Ashish George]

Sorry, I see that was Aresen who said that, not Brandybuck. Although I would add that when Brandybuck says, "Only a true-beleiver leftist would consider being below standard to be famously successful," he might be forgetting that there are other measures of success than purely economic ones.

[Brandybuck]

However, they are a great example of the success of voluntary communism.

No one much argues against small groups of voluntaryists setting up socialist communes. But this is a vastly different thing from coercive socialist states.

[x,y]

Dear joe:

You did not answer my question. But perhaps I wasn't clear enough.

I asked you to show me where I consented. By this, I mean where I consented to every law I am encouraged to follow under threat of fine, imprisonment, or both.

I live under a system and abide by various rules because I consider them superior to the alternatives. This does not, however, make the rules moral. Nor does it evidence consent.

For example, let's say a man walking down the street puts a knife to your throat and says, "Give me $10 or $20. Or I'll cut your throat." You give the man $10 because it was best option. The man's actions are not moral. Nor could anyone rightfully say you consented to giving up $10.

Sincerely,

x,y

[Aresen]

prolefeed

The agrarian socialist model is usually successful in the short term. Prior to the industrial revolution, however, they usually collapsed due to interal strife by the third generation.

What is remarkable about the Hutterites is that they have been successful over several generations.

I cannot prove that the access to external markets and technology has made the difference, but it is the only factor which seems unique to them. [Which, I suppose, leaves me short of an explanation for the Amish.]

Ashish George

You are correct. I used a lazy shorthand, substituting "Kerala" for the system under which it operates. MHA.

[prolefeed]

Aresen -- the Hutterites are similar to both the Amish and the Mormons in that they are trying to maintain a 19th or 18th century worldview about morality and how to live one's life. The Amish eschew all modern technology, the Hutterites use modern technology to make goods but eschew consumerism, and Mormons use modern technology and condemn only excessive levels of consumerism. But, all three are rooted in a pioneer ethos, and all three are viable through many generations because there are people out there who view the modern world as wicked and depraved and want to keep themselves apart from worldly influences. Mormons have a lot of their young leave the Church, the Hutterites less so, and the Amish least of all, since increasing levels of exposure to the modern world increases the chances of someone "defecting" to its allegedly pernicious influences.

[Aresen]

prolefeed

I agree that the openness to the outside world makes a difference. I leave out the Mormons because they are definitely NOT agrarian socialists. I really do not know what the internal economy the Amish follow, so I can't address that.

tarran raised the Hutterites as an example of a successful agrarian communist society and my point was that most such societies have collapsed within three generations, whether or not they were religiously based. I suggested that the access to outside markets and technology may have been the reason for the long term survival of the Hutterites over many generations.

[joe]

prolefeed,

By "slowly strangle" blah blah blah, are you referring to the 30 years after World War 2, when we rose to be strongest economic superpower the world had ever seen even as the New Deal and Great Society were our economic policy, or to the longest peacetime period of economic expansion in American history that occured after the Clinton economic plan was adopted?

History not your strong point?

[joe]

No, kohlrabi, you missed the point. I was asked by x,y when he gave his consent to be taxed. I answered that he gave it at exactly the same time, and in the same manner, that he gave his consent for the government to enforce property rights.

It isn't consenting to the trespassers that's the analogy; it's consenting to the use of force by the police to enforce the laws against trespassing. x,y no more gave his individual consent to be taxed than a trespasser gave his individual consent to be grabbed by the collar and dragged off someone's land.

It's called the social contract, and you don't get to weave in and out of consenting to having a government depending on whether or not you like a particular law or policy.

[joe]

kohlrabi,

In other words, the laws against trespass do not depend on the trespasser willingly agreeing to have them enforces against him.

[joe]

Wow, prolefeed is even worse at history than I thought.

Poverty in India is a result of a leftist government?

Which one - the Moghuls or the British Empire?

Dude, read a book.

[joshua corning]

My take: a capitalist system to produce wealth, a strong welfare state to redistribute it. Sounds like a plan.

Great so I expect you to start voting for property rights initiatives and trying to knock down smoke ban laws in bars and supporting the deregulation the oil industry and privatizing social security and cutting capital gains taxes and dropping support for social justice and promoting a flat tax over a progressive one and ending cafe standards for cars and trucks...and on and on and on.

Welcome to the capitalist club joe

[joe]

Smoking bans?

If capitalism means everything, then it means nothing.

[joe]

I'll stay in the "capable of dealing with the world as it is, rather than I wish it to be" club, thanks.

[joshua corning]

In other words, the redistribution system requires me to participate, to abandon my preference for being left alone.

Hell it makes me abandon putting my money into redistribution systems that actually work.

[joshua corning]

I'll stay in the "capable of dealing with the world as it is, rather than I wish it to be" club, thanks.

Status quo joe!

[joe]

Yeah, really big ideas that are going to save the world don't hold a whole lotta appeal for me these days.

I wonder why.

[prolefeed]

joe -- Do you only read socialist history books? Do you seriously think the economic growth after WWII came about because of the effing New Deal -- the New Deal that turned a recession into the worst depression in American History? The economic growth that only occured after the worst excesses of the New Deal were pared back? The economic growth that occured because the economies and infrastructure of our chief competitors lay in ruins as a result of WWII, and those competitors for the most part adopted even more socialistic governments than ours? Do you seriously think that the booming Indian economy that occured after the socialist policies were eased into more capitalist modes was a coincidence?

Wow. Just wow.

Have you ever even visited mises.org or read Hayek or perused the books of libertarian thinkers?

[prolefeed]

joe, try perusing this for starters to supplement your alleged reading of history about the New Deal:

Mises.org on the New Deal

[prolefeed]

... unless you want to continue to get your historical perspective about the New Deal from here:

[Space Monkey]

My family is from Kerala, and its kind of sad, when you visit.

The whole state is like the country home people buy after making their money in the city.

Its safe, clean (amazing in India), the water is drinkable, and a generally great place to live. Problem is that it is completely economically unsustaibale. Almost every Malayali wants it to stay the same slow relaxed leftist way, but its unlikely, as the lure of money is getting a lot closer like Bangalore and Chennai.

It does not seem all that different than Vermont, or other places that have a great quality of life, but require a constant influx of money and moneyed people.

[Breaking myth]

"Though poor even by India's standards"

I bet only somebody who does not know anything about Kerala or India can make such a dumb comment. Just travel across India and then travel in Kerala. You will find the difference. Poeple from neigboring states flock to kerala to work in menial jobs because they can earn double what they earn in their respective states. True, people migrate abroad from kerala because they want to earn even more. Also, they do not want work in menial jobs in their home state (may be a keralite trait!!).

Checkout with any consumer goods producer in India. Every new product is launched first in kerala.

So my point is, the govt of kerala may be poor, but the people are much well off than their counterparts in the rest of India, and enjoy a lifestyle that is much better than south asian standards.

[grumpy realist]

Sounds like similar complaints could be made about Aspen or La Jolla. Nice, laid-back places with lots of people who make their money outside the location. (As Kerala does with people working abroad and sending back remittances)

The question is whether as time goes on, people who have worked abroad will come back and start up companies in Karala, or whether they will take their entrepreneurial enthusiasm elsewhere.

(Come to think of it, Japan has been throwing out or exiling its brilliant rabblerousers since the beginning of time, and still manages to have a pretty strong economy. I know more Japanese entrepreneurs in California than I do in Tokyo.)

[Bond investor]

Am traveling to Kerala in about 4 months. As part of my research, I have gotten the impression that it's an imbalance between human capital investment versus physical and financial capital investment that is causing the problem of Keralites getting wealthier at the expense of shattering the nuclear family.

Consider the focus on building Dubai into the Persian Gulf's Wall Street while neglecting democracy, social mobility, or local education, which leads to terrorists growing up in your population. Or the focus on heavy industry in China, while neglecting democracy and banking/financial intermediaries, as well as fertility policies that guarantee high crime and social upheaval. Now contrast it with pursuit of health care and literacy, while the anti-business Communist and Marxist parties neglect the development of physical and financial capital.

I see a pattern developing.... And I'm not implying my home, the USA, has it "perfect." But I think we have a better balance than the previous regions do... of course, we have the Founders/historical accident that gave us a head start of many decades...

I should probably go back and read each of the articles in the NYT Job Migration series, maybe they've covered this.

[joe]

prolefeed,

1) No, I don't read socialist history books.

2) I didn't claim that the New Deal or the Clinton economic plan CAUSED those astounding periods of economic growth, just that, contrarty to the predictions of your sort, those programs did not stifle that economic growth.

Man, you can set your watch by how dependably conservatives flail at that straw man.

BTW, if you'd read some history that isn't overtly ideological, you make embarass yourself by asserting that the Great Depression began in 1933.